If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7

11-01-2007, 05:31 PM

There's been a bunch of discussion in xcannon69's thread here not really related to the topic, which was misuse of armor, but more geared toward loss of spawn points in APCs and on the SL in PR .7. I've decided to start a new thread here to discuss this.

---------------------------------------------

Personally, I'm willing to lose the SL respawn (that's what rally points are for), but I'm really against losing the APC as a spawn point. As has been mentioned before, taking away these two spawn options on any large map is going to turn PR into a marathon running simulation (just classic - thanks Portable.Cougar). I'm concerned about the loss of playability in this change, and I fear that the mod may be moving in a direction that is a little too "hard core". I haven't played ARMA, but from what I've read about it, this sounds like where PR is heading.

I would suggest, as but a humble PR player, that .7 introduces the loss of just one of the two options and see how that impacts gameplay. If things are still too chaotic or not realistic enough, then the next release could remove the other of the two.

I can think of two restrictions to the proposed changes:

1. For the SL spawn, it could only work if the squad has a rally down, otherwise the squad cannot us the SL as a spawn point. This would eliminate the run from the rally to the SL position (or simulate it).

2. Only allow apcs to act as a spawn point if both the driver position and the gunner position is occupied by a crewman. Fuzz mentioned that this was already on the radar for .5, but the team was unable to put this in due to restrictions within the engine.

I guess the bottom line is is that I am concerned about a serious loss of playability and enjoyment of the game. It is, after all, a video game and people do play it for enjoyment. I also realize that it is just one mod, we're getting the results of countless man-hours of work for free, and we don't have to play it if we don't want to. Understood. It is just that I really, really enjoy the mod and I'd hate to see it lose the almost perfect balance it seems to have between realism and having fun.

I completely agree with this, although have great faith that PR will make a right decision. Removing SL spawn point would be a big blow to the amount of action experienced within PR. Spawn points fall fast, and without a 6 player TG regular squad I think it could be VERY hard to get 4 people at a squad leaders position to drop a rally. It's sometimes hard enough to convince people to get to squad leader when its just a click away.

Comment

The devs have their reasons for removing SL/APC spawn points. We have little to no authority to tell them what to do at this point.

Couple of things to remember.
1. Project Reality is still version 0.6 - assuming the devs keep working on their mod, we should see new versions coming out. This also means that the devs are constantly tweaking current game dynamics and adding in new elements.
2. We can discuss the theoretical consequences of removing the SL/APC spawn points but we won't know how it will "actually" affect the gameplay. This is why they hold open beta tests.

Theory:
1. Since one can no longer spawn on an APCs/SL, players will have to value their life more. Dieing will bring real consequences which can determine the outcome of a shootout between teams.
2. Squads will have to work together to accomplish goals. The players that stray away from other squad members will have a lower chance of survival. Uncooperative squads will hinder the success of a team. In other words, logistics will become a big issue, keeping the squad together will bring success as compared to the present situation where you can respawn all SMs within 30 secs provided the SL stays alive. (There will be a great incentive to stay together as a squad)
3. APCs will be used as a supporting role instead of a "mobile main base". They will be on the battlefield to provide transportation, and heavy firepower where the infantry need it the most.
4. The commander role will become very important. Bunkers and Firebases still remain as spawn locations which will help the team with a good commander. They will become integral to the success of a team. Follow your commander's orders, help your team.
5. Well structured attack/defense plans will have a bigger affect. This will make capturing CPs that are under defended much easier to cap since people can't spawn on the SL. (No more dealing with wave after wave of resistance)
Therefore,
Removing APC/SL points is a good idea.

Comment

After thinking about it, I think removing the spawn on the SL is a good thing. It makes the squad leader an actual leader, instead of that guy that can hide really well and can run away long enough for his guys to spawn in on him and mow down his pursuers (no more panic room, eh?). If they get rid of the SL spawn, though, they need to make rally points harder to find. Right now you can basically hear them from 75 yards away.

APC's, however, should retain their spawn. Leaving us with rally points and CO assets only is dangerous, IMO. If one team has a good commander, and the other one does not (or doesn't have one), the team without with CO will be in serious trouble.

Taking both out is just too much, leave one or the other in, preferable APC.

Comment

It's a very utopian view of PR I think. Everyone will have their own little role, transport squads will transport us effectively, squads will stick together, the commander will build bunkers...

I'm entirely skeptical this will work out the way everyone envisions. Putting more emphasis on stuff that already isn't happening is basically like advancing the student with a 20% average onto the next grade.

While removing the APC spawn would work great with everyone playing exactly as they should, I just don't see it happening especially with the casual crowd who just wants to fight the battle in a less arcade setting (current PR).

The SL spawn point being removed is somehow being viewed as the holy grail of squads sticking together. How is it that the Marksman, Support, and Medic I just lost ( and are now spawning well away from the SL and who now have to run from what could be a great distance) are now sticking with me while Im still fighting off the goonies? This will fragment squads.

We'll see how it plays out but I'm a naysayer on this one :P

Comment

Removal of the SL spawn should warrant a drop to 2-3 total squad members to set a rally in my opinion. I do think this will stress the importance of the forward bunkers which I agree with and does get rid of some of the hidden squad leader endless stream of badguys that we get on Mestia, but I think they should compensate by making it easier to get the rally up.

|TG-6th|Snooggums

Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

Comment

this is a summary with most elements borrowed from wolfe who wrote about this a while ago, i think its a good summary about the issue.

THE PROBLEM:

* Spawning on the SL is illogical and unrealistic. It's little more than zerging. As one person so eloquently put it, "I'd rather have to run to my squad leader's ass than climb out of it".

* The only difference between keeping or removing the SL spawn is 100 meters. Thus far, the majority of reasons given by those against removing the SL spawn is the unwillingness to run the extra 100 meters. If that's not a "I just want to get in there and kill" mentality, then I don't know what is.

* Spawning on a squad leader removes any fear of death. I have no fear of dying if I can re-spawn directly on the action 30 seconds later. This reduces the game to a rush-kill style of fighting.

* Spawning directly on a flag that your team doesn't control should never be possible. Currently, you can do this 3 ways: SL, apc, and commander truck. That is 3 ways too many. How should it ever be possible to spawn reinforcements on enemy-controlled territory other than the desire to spawn directly on the action?

* SL spawns (in addition to apc and commander truck spawns) reduce or eliminate the importance of defending flags. Why bother defending a friendly flag if I can spawn directly on the enemy flag? Watch the mini-map during play and you'll see this in action nearly every time. Your entire team, like lemmings, gravitate from one flag to the next, spawning as close to the action as they can with little regard for defense.

* All of these things place too much emphasis on individual squads and takes away emphasis from the team. It should be the other way around.

THE SOLUTION:

* Limit spawn locations to the main base, rally points, and commander bunkers/firebases.

* Possibly change the way rallypoints work, either with less requirements to set one, requiring rallypoints to be put WITHIN a radius of flag or bunker/firebase that your team controls and away from the enemy flag, or other changes to rallypoints based on playtesting.

THE EFFECT:

* Attacks against enemy or neutral flags would be launched from friendly flags, bunkers, or remote firebases, making these points much more important to operate and defend as a team.

* Rally points are no longer black holes from which infinite numbers of troops can appear behind enemy lines without any logical supply route from the front lines.

* Squad leaders are now responsible for keeping their squad alive through real life tactics instead of just keeping themselves alive through infinite ass-spawns as a tactic.

* Infantry is forced to be much more cautious how they run into battle because like real life, they'll be more fearful of death. God forbid should you value the life of the guy covering your back.

* Transportation will become logistically more important, just like real life. Jeep spawns will need to be modified to accommodate, and it's must more strategically fun to take a short jeep drive into the action than park a squad leader and zerg from it.

* Emphasis will be more towards team attack and defense strategy instead of individual squad or (as it is now) individual soldier strategy.

* Killing a solder will actually mean he's DEAD, and not about to spawn 30 seconds later 3 feet away from where he died.

It's the difference between killing through strategy, and strategy through killing. A "reality" mod should be "strategy, movement, execution" but right now it feels like "charge, kill, respawn"; very much like vanilla with realistic toys. Perhaps this is what some people want, but I doubt this style of play is what the devs had in mind and there are plenty of other mods out there that that offer it.

I challenge anyone who votes "no" to removing the SL spawn to show how SL zerg spawning enhances gameplay/strategy other than to help you kill faster. Thus far, the only argument presented against removing the SL spawn has been in essence: "I don't want to wait to play". Perhaps those people are playing the wrong mod.

Let me illustrate this another way, with pictures instead of words: Would you rather have the first image or the second image?

First image - Current style of spawning:

can spawn on enemy/neutral flags

can spawn behind enemy lines

can spawn regardless of what bases are taken

Second image - Structured spawn method:

no sl spawning

rally points must be within base radius, but cannot be near enemy or neutral bases (bases you don't control).

reinforcements are tied to base control

squads NEED bases, therefore they will be doing everything possible to help the commander build bases, defend them, and move them when necessary. TOTAL TEAMWORK.

lines of engagement are much more defined

I think this type of spawn system is FAR better than the current "spawn anywhere" system. It's much more realistic in terms of reinforcements, teamwork, lines of engagement, and flanking tactics.

To flank effectively, you can't just lay down a lazy rally point then spawn spawn spawn. You have to move undetected, then execute an attack with good squad communication. You're behind enemy lines, so stay alive. This makes flanking much more fun if not only from the nervous intensity of knowing you're behind enemy lines and not wanting to die there.

This also forces tanks into the city. For example, since Team 1 has a good defense in east city, team 2 may not be able to take it alone. With tanks moving in behind infantry support, they have a much better chance.

All of these things promote focus to battles, and enhance real strategy, not just everyone spawning on top of each other then pressing the spray n pray button.

I have a question. Which is more fun?

Attacking a flag by hiding your squad(spawn) leader on the flag area, then spawning waves of reinforcements from point blank range, hoping that in the process of crazed shooting to kill their spawn leader as quickly as possible to prevent their reinfocements from spawning directly next to yours.

Attacking a flag from a staging point 100 meters out, analyzing their defenses, creeping forward then executing a coordinated attack designed to stun, confuse, then kill the enemy, knowing that for each enemy killed, it is one less you have to worry about spawning next to you 30 seconds later. The more skillful the attack, the better chance you have at survival and gaining control of the flag, as you prepare for a counter attack 100 meters away from the other direction.

The point that PR is currently 'charge, kill, respawn' is a brutally honest description of the majority of PR rounds right now, and squad leader spawning plays a major role in hyper accelerating the pace of PR gameplay. Slow down the pace and let this mod play more tactical please!

Loss of Squad Cohesion due to SL Spawning Removal

The main argument against removing the SL spawn seems to be the loss of squad cohesion. But as a counter to that, I have noticed much, much more squad cohesion due to the fact that you need 3 people to place an RP. Whoever came up with that idea was brilliant. Forcing people to stay together to put RP's down has greatly increased squad cohesion, from the super squad to the lowly spec ops squad. It's the perfect carrot to new players. If you don't want to spawn back at the main, join as squad and stay close to your SL so he can put an RP down.

Well what will the squad leader do if his whole squad is killed off and now hes split up from his squad! How does that promote teamwork? Well if the whole squad was killed except for the squad leader, the squad leader would now have to do something like what he might have to do in real life: Run the **** away, or find a hole in stay in until reinforcements arrive. Wow, strange concept!

Im sure it would take a couple weeks for players to adapt to this new gameplay but the whole mindset about the way players look at spawns would probably change drastically prety quickly. It wouldnt be so much 'how can I get quickest into the action?'. But rather 'what is the best tactical position to reinforce from?'

Heres another example of an in game scenario:

You are approaching an enemy CP. Your squad places a RP which has to be 100 meters away from the CP. Your squad arrives at the CP and begins capturing, at this point the enemy discovers the squad and begins attacking to clear you guys out.

A: With SL spawning in effect, the SL goes inside a locker room building or something, and as the attackers try to clear it out guys just keep spawning and coming out of nowhere. Same thing for the guys trying to cap the flag, enemies keep coming or maybe even spawning right in front of you. The battle goes on and on like this for 15-20 minutes, the same pointless firefights play out over and over again with no clear way to determine who is winning or losing, only that 2 squads are fighting each other and they just keep dying.

B: With out SL spawning, the guys trying to cap the flag are killed, except the SL. The attackers know that they faced a full squad, and they know they dropped 5 guys, so they know there was one more left, and they can be expecting the enemy to come back with reinforcements but that they have won the firefight and can now prepare their defenses.

I don't know about you, but I like situation B alot more, and it seems more realistic to me. Plus spawning at your RP gives you a chance to get a limited kit. It promotes variety in your squad instead of just having riflemen and medics spawn in the midst of combat.

Creating new roles on the battlefield and reinforcing teamwork

I would also like to emphasis the point that transport in its current form, when playing PR semi competitively, is almost useless... because of the multitude of spawnpoints its quite unnecesary for heli transport or APC transport anywhere except at the start of the round. If we ever want transport to become more involved than grabbing a car from mainbase, driving it to a spot then ditching it for the remainder of the round, spawnpoint changes need to occur to facilitate the use of vehicles as a logistical necessity.

PR Future Directions

I think that there are some greater conflicts at play here which should be noted.

You can see a very clear divide in thinking. It is a dichotomy which I have noticed for a long time in the PR community.

(Camp 1) There are those (myself included) who want PR to be very realistic, for the gameplay to be much slower, and on a larger scale. An OFP for BF2 sort of thing, where the maps are large, the players are afraid for their lives, and being shot at or shooting is a much rarer event than currently. Squads have time to discuss a plan, form a defensive perimeter, call for reinforcements, call airstrikes, ask for transport, mutually supporting Armor and infantry in attacks and defense, etc

(Camp 2) Then there are those who want BF2's fast paced gameplay coupled with ultra-deadly and realistic weaponry. A mod for people who don't have 2 hours to spend playing one round or 30 minutes to throw away defending some arbitrary place in some arbitrary video game.

And of course there are those somewhere in the middle on this, as with any debate there is a spectrum of views. But what is interesting about PR, currently, is that depending on which map one plays, you can either experience game 1 or game 2. Consider the gameplay differences between, say, Helmand and Kashan.

Ultimately, I think it is important for PR's leadership to choose one of these two generalized directions to pursue in future releases. Once y'all decide which 'strategic direction' you want the mod to go, these big issues like spawning structures will fall into place relatively clearly.

Open Beta Period

Also these changes need to be tried in the OB. Y'all are 'playing' alot of rounds of PR on the forums with all these diffrerent scenarios. These gameplay mechanic changes would be great to test in the OB's for .7. Set it up fuzz's way and then, when it sucks, we can make fun of him, and no commitments are made.

Comment

some context from me if you would indulge...I played mucho .5 when it was up but switched my gaming time to Armed Assault shortly after .6 came out. I'm back to PRM :) and loving it but after months of playing ARMA spawning on SL seems almost like cheating. I know, I know.. this isn't Arma Thank you very much...but that said... I really like the idea of no spawning on the SL. This increases the demands on the SL as solid tactics will be required to keep your squad vital and combat effective. It'll be good I think. For those who haven't played or don't know about Arma upon dying in many missions you'd spawn miles back from the front line and the SL would be responsible for arranging consistent transport and resupplies to keep the front line troops in the fight.

sigpic|TG-1st|GruntARMA Admin (retired) Pathfinder-Spartan 5

Comment

So I rush my team up as far as they can go, build a bunker, make a barb wire fortress, and get two heavies to cover it... The engagement seems to be this: unlimited defenders... undersized attacking force.

While I agree the SL spawning is ridiculous in itself it's a stop gap measure for the fact you can only have 32 on 32. We could sit here all day going "in reality". In reality we'd have the airforce with precision weapons, in reality we'd have hundreds of soldiers moving on objectives, in reality a cargo plane flying ammo into a remote armor squad in the middle of a battlefield is canon fodder, in reality a 5 man squad is a squad that's lost a few people, in reality a tank goes down in one shot from another tank and no amount of parking next to a humvee will save you, I'll spare you my entire list.

I realize this entire argument has been ongoing for as long as the mod has been around but I just want to get a good dialogue (like fuzz posted above) so I can and others can understand the reasoning.

But not to be totally biased, I will add this to your argument. I'm first a foremost an RTS player. IF you see PR as an FPRTS ( First Person Real Time Strategy ) then yes, the current incarnation of PR is ridiculous. I'm trying to decide whether to use Company of Heroes or World In Conflict as the example here. I guess the following would apply to both.

In a GOOD RTS every action you make on the battlefield is going to haunt you to the very end. If I'm playing CoH (Company of Heroes) and my troops get blown away in the middle of the map, my only action is to build more at base and pile em into a half-track and get them back to the fight. Mind you in CoH I would proceed to obliterate the objective with artillery before mounting another attack <- this ability alone would negate my entire argument about being outnumbered. But yes, bottom line: reinforcements come from your main base in an RTS and the battle sways back and forth.

But I guess what I'm saying in this long winded post is that I can disagree with all your points and agree with them all at the same time. If you could pull off the RTS aspect (which I believe would require more assets and perhaps another way of deciding the battle other than tickets) then I think everything will balance itself out. However adding too much slog could kill it before anyone even gives it a chance, in fact I think the slog is already worrying some :P

Comment

I strongly agree with Raftermans main point of a 32 vs. 32 environment.

It creates the limitations on what is 'realistic yet still playable'.

It seems that there would be a great deal of tweaking needed to be done, off the top of my head it would seem that the LAT and Anti Personnel kits would have to be re-introduced as main kits, like Rifleman and Engineer. Seems it might make attack and defense in this environment a little more plausible.

The problem with removing spawns from APC's is that there are typically limited numbers of them to begin with. There are already plenty of maps where limited spawn points make for a miserable time gamewise.

Maybe spawn points could be created upon successful capture of a point with a complete resource for kits, repairs, and ammo.

It's really hard to say for sure. One thing that always needs to be kept in mind is that even on a server that is as nice as TG, not all players wish to work as a team, and not all players have a fair amount of PR experience to do so. This complicates things even more for the playability issue.

One thing for sure, I would like to see more, and better, placements for AT positions. Having to solely rely on Engineers to trek long distances just for a hope of damaging enemy armor is horrid. In all instances of emplaced AT, they are positioned in a crappy spot rendering them 99.9% useless, and you can't shoot over the sandbags that surround them. Another thing is that AT emplacements and HAT's are under-ranged in sighting distance.

Anti-Air kits are still miserably poor and 99.9% ineffective as well.

Anyway, that's a quick $0.02 from my perspective.

Comment

Ultimately, I think it is important for PR's leadership to choose one of these two generalized directions to pursue in future releases. Once y'all decide which 'strategic direction' you want the mod to go, these big issues like spawning structures will fall into place relatively clearly.

Of all the comments that were made this was the one I felt the biggest desire to comment on. When you already have games which implement both sides of the spectrum, why on Earth would there be a necessity to have to commit to one direction or the other? What's wrong with having the happy medium other than the difficulty in finding that sweet spot and maintaining it? ;) Another way of looking at it...

Why are the vanilla BF2 and POE players attracted to PR?
Why are the people desiring realism not off playing ArmA?

For me personally, I'm in the faster action type camp. Been that way ever since I played through 2 years of WWIIOL and then Planetside enlightened me. :D I love to play PR because IMO it took away the gamiest of the BF2 elements while still retaining the core BF2 game play. The extra teamwork requirement is there but not to the degree of overwhelming a public server where the amount of teamwork that can be expected is uncertain.

I will of course approach 0.7 with an open mind but I'm concerned because I love the current game play but even with 0.6 I leave when certain maps show up which for my own tastes slow things down too much or are simply not as much fun. I fear that for me 0.7 will be the end and what out there is in any position to replace its unique style of play? Sure the diehards will mutter "this mod is obviously not for you". But that line of thinking IMO ultimately leads to servers which are not full and a shrinking community.

Comment

While understanding that these hypothetical discussions of possible game changes are entirely futile and problably a waste of time, there are some general assumptions which I think can be drawn.

The main problem I see is that with each new attempt to tweak a feature to make the game more "realistic", the learning curve for new players just gets bigger and bigger. This in turn will increase player alienation and decrease the new player base.

Sure, most people who post in here and/or are already comfortable enough with the game will have little trouble adapting to the new game play, and can safely say "screw you" to the newbies, that we dont need any more new players. But that's hardly in the spirit of gaming, and I doubt the developers care more about the core veterans then they do about increasing their player base. Lets face it: there is money on the bottom line. It's free now, but Im sure they are hoping it will eventually get picked up and bought by a studio, a-la counterstrike. Of course, I could be completely wrong about this. I have read on the R-Devs' forums about how they program the game based on how they, the veteran programmers and players think it should be played, and get pissed when anyone even tweaks minor details once they get the server software. But how long will it be realistic for them to continue down a path which could end up financially unviable?

As the old saying goes, there are three things which are inevitiable in life: Death, taxes, and someone trying (read here: selling out) to make a buck.

Now, in terms of the strive for a pure tactical simulation, think about how unbalanced the game could be, and not just after a new release when there is always instability. There would be almost no room for even a single new player in a squad. In either offense or defence, this would result in a chink in the armor.

I dont want to keep beating a dead horse with Kashan as an example, but bear with me. Suppose there are no longer spawns on SL's or APC's as is being bandied about here. One can only spawn on a RP, Bunker, and I guess the support truck. The people in favor of this say that they are fine with this, that it would require slower forward advances involving the whole team,or something along those lines. With two teams comprised entirely of veteran players this could work well.

But if there are newbies placed anywhere on a team then stuff would break down. Say an enemy tank squad comes while a team is trying to get into one of the bunkers to establish a base, and either the friendly tanks are incompetent, or the commander is killed before a fire base can be placed (dont give me that crap that "the commander would be playing improperly if he got killed"; $hit hapens), or the RP's are destroyed or not yet placed before a support bunker is placed, or any combination of this, and the team gets plastered. It is already possible to begin with, even with good players, and exponentially more so with new players.

Then the whole team is, to repeat the great saying, enjoying a great marathon sim. There might as well be a concession button for the losing commander just to give up and switch to the next map. At least there had better be a constantly respawning motor pool of humvees or vans...

Or take a situaiton with a newbie squad, unaccustomed to tactics. On either defense or offense they would just get smeared, and then would have to run. And run. And, as is for a veteran squad, there could be an experienced scout looking for a rally point to take down. Then they would be running without question. For someone trying to learn, running gets old fast.

For many new players, the first time this happens would very possibly be their last. I have a couple hard core gaming friends who have only played PR once and gave it up because of the marathon, even as it is played now with the available spawning abilities.

Again, this probably wouldn't bother most people in here. But the fan base could further decrease. People would stop populating servers. It wouldnt be fun playing anywhere that the majority of players dont know all the persnickety rules. WAIT A MINUTE, that's how it already is. The TG server is really the only one that is fun now, with a few exceptions. And even it can be frustrating to play in when the teams are imbalanced (and dont give me that crap about how any newbies can form a squad that can compete against a verteran TG squad!).

So I dont know, I think I am too hooked to quit playing, but it would be a shame if the player base quit growing, or even began to shrink. One of the reasons I quit playing CS, besides the fact that I had played it for 7 years straight, through all of its updates and changes, right into complete boredom with it, is that the servers started being empty and it was hard to find a decent place to play with any decent competition.

That's enough for now. I doubt anybody will even make it all the way through this...